Scherzer likes to shoot himself in foot now and again.
*
TaS, did you figure in Dirks depreciating returns due to less at bats. And you are confident at 95% ?
Wait, so any batter with less at bats [same avg.] has a higher ceiling than a more proven hitter ?

Scherzer likes to shoot himself in foot now and again.
*
TaS, did you figure in Dirks depreciating returns due to less at bats. And you are confident at 95% ?
Wait, so any batter with less at bats [same avg.] has a higher ceiling than a more proven hitter ?

Wait, so any batter with less at bats [same avg.] has a higher ceiling than a more proven hitter ?

Click to expand...

It's not really a higher potential- like they can achieve greater things if they work at it. It's more of a greater unknown as to their existing ability because you have less data to go by. You are just not as sure as what you are looking at.

Think of it this way:
Somebody randomly selects data from 10 at bats of a random major league player and gives it to you to analyze. You have no idea if the data is from Ryan Raburn or Pete Rose. The data suggests that the unknown hitter has a .400 average over those 10 at bats.

If you run the math, you might see that you have a 95% confidence level that the unknown hitter actually hit somewhere between .050 and .750 that season. So, that would narrow it down to just about every player who has ever played. If the random data selected gave you 300 at bats and a .400 average, you'd be more like 95% confident that the mystery hitter is somebody that averaged between .390 an .410 for that entire season (a tighter range) and you could probably take a pretty good guess at who it is.

To give a Pistons comparison, Ben Gordon shot .429 from 3-point land last season. How confident are we that the percentage wasn't a total aberration due to small sample size? The sample for his entire season of 3-point shooting was actually less than Dirks' sample size for at bats this season so far. Only 1 Piston on the team attempted more 3's than Dirks has at bats.

However, Trout's sample size is more equivalent to Chauncey Billups' free throw attempts in the Championship season. i.e. it's really likely that he's good and not just lucky.

It's not really a higher potential- like they can achieve greater things if they work at it. It's more of a greater unknown as to their existing ability because you have less data to go by. You are just not as sure as what you are looking at.

Think of it this way:
Somebody randomly selects data from 10 at bats of a random major league player and gives it to you to analyze. You have no idea if the data is from Ryan Raburn or Pete Rose. The data suggests that the unknown hitter has a .400 average over those 10 at bats.

If you run the math, you might see that you have a 95% confidence level that the unknown hitter actually hit somewhere between .050 and .750 that season. So, that would narrow it down to just about every player who has ever played. If the random data selected gave you 300 at bats and a .400 average, you'd be more like 95% confident that the mystery hitter is somebody that averaged between .390 an .410 for that entire season (a tighter range) and you could probably take a pretty good guess at who it is.

To give a Pistons comparison, Ben Gordon shot .429 from 3-point land last season. How confident are we that the percentage wasn't a total aberration due to small sample size? The sample for his entire season of 3-point shooting was actually less than Dirks' sample size for at bats this season so far. Only 1 Piston on the team attempted more 3's than Dirks has at bats.

However, Trout's sample size is more equivalent to Chauncey Billups' free throw attempts in the Championship season. i.e. it's really likely that he's good and not just lucky.

Chicks love the long ball and tonight the our turbo twosome were huge knocking in all runs going yard...and scoring all the runs too.

Verlander started but for the second straight game failed to get a decision. No matter we will take the win no matter who gets the credit. Back into wild card position and waiting for, hoping for a ChiSox and Tampa Bay loss tonight.

In the Tigers victory Tuesday night over Toronto, , Scherzer struck out 7 Blue Jays, and not a single Tiger struck out the whole game.

I am not sure when this is the last time it has happen and I did not read anything on it today, but I remember looking at the box score on MLB.com right after the game wondering when was the last time it had happen...especially to the free swinging Tigers.

Tonight they struck out 7 times, in their 3-2 win so they are back to normal.....